Marrickville - People Against Global Warming

Peter Beattie is a “last century” politician

2006-08-28T13:11:00.000-07:00

Sunday was the launch of the Green’s urban water policy, promising to deliver water to southeast Queensland by reducing consumption targets, recycling, rainwater tanks and demand reduction.

According to the Green’s, Peter Beattie is a “last century” politician with "last century" thinking.

Juanita Wheeler (Mt Coot-tha candidate for the Greens) said the issues of water and climate change forefront of politics. But Beattie supporting the coal industry so strongly and not having any creative solutions to the State’s water problem makes him a last century politician.

"When we first started talking, people were like, oh The Greens, it's Chicken Little the sky is falling, but now more and more people are starting to realise that ... the messages that we have been sending is going to be reality. Queensland Labor are talking about it but it has been way too long."

Bob Brown has stated that there is a significant protest vote against the ALP and their "last century" solutions to the state's crises. "Peter Beattie is so last century, The Greens are so this century." "Peter Beattie is so big end of town, The Greens are so your suburb, your street, your family," he said.

Beattie is such a strong supporter of the coal industry in Queensland that even the coal industry is embarrassed about it.

Beattie has said on numerous occasions he would want to ensure the future of Queensland's coal industry. In his own words, “I mean this is ... black and white - I am a strong supporter of the coal industry… the coal industry has a long-term future with 300 years of deposits in reserve.”

Tilting at wind mills

2006-08-25T14:12:00.000-07:00

So, somebody wants to put a wind farm in your backyard. Maybe you want it, maybe you don't. Then somebody comes along and says that it might kill lots of birds. So, what do you do? How many birds get killed by windmills, anyway?

Here's what we know: researchers have found that on most modern wind farms, each turbine kills an average of 2.3 birds each year (read the latest NWCC report here).

So if they want to put a monster 500 turbine wind farm in your county, that might kill an estimated (reaching for the calculator...) 1150 birds a year. Still sounds like a lot?

It is estimated that the average house kills around 10 birds a year that smack into its nice picture windows. The average outdoor cat may kill 10 birds each year as well. There are about 100 million homes in the U.S. and maybe that many cats as well. Are you doing the math? We're looking at something like a billion birds killed by windows, and another billion killed by cats, each and every year. With an estimated 20 billion birds in the U.S. each fall, windows and cats may be killing about 10% of all birds every year.

How does that stack up against birds killed by windows. If you crunch the numbers found here, you'll find that there are currently something like 17,800 wind turbines in the U.S. At 2.3 birds per turbine, that's 40,940 birds killed by windmills each year.

Of course, these are estimates. There are some windfarms that kill more birds. Others kill fewer birds. If someone is proposing a windfarm in your area, make sure that they do their environmental studies to show that they're not going to build it in a major migratory pathway, or near too many nesting hawks or eagles. See if you can get them to do ongoing monitoring of the windfarm to make sure that they aren't killing inordinate numbers of birds.

All in all, the habitat destruction that takes place putting in the service roads for the windmills will probably be more damaging than the windmills themselves. Again, if you have a chance, make sure that those impacts are addressed. Maybe there should be some mitigation for habitat destroyed. Its probably going to come down to what you and your county are able to negotiate.

If wind developers do their homework, and do a good job choosing a site, then there shouldn't be too big a problem with a windfarm killing birds. If you want to oppose a windfarm on aesthetic grounds, that's another thing. Just remember that the window you have to look through to see the local windfarm is actually killing at least as many birds as the windmills themselves.

Now, that said, wind power's ability to reduce our need for fossil fuel burning needs for electricity generation is another question entirely...

Article provided by birdchasier.blogspot.com

Wind farms - pros and cons

2006-08-24T13:13:00.000-07:00

To develop an informed debate on wind power I have put down some advantages and disadvantages. There are those that strongly support wind power and those, basically the ‘not in my back yard’ crowd, who lobby hard against wind power. Here’s an idea of the arguments on both side of the fence.

On the positive side, wind power provide a renewable energy source. Once they have been put up, turbines provide a clean source of energy with no fossil fuel pollution and no waste products.

Even though the turbines are large, the towers have a small footprint. The base of a turbine occupies only a small area and farmers can still cultivate the land around them.

They are as easy to get rid of as they are to put up. When a turbine reaches the end of its life, or has been replaced by more advanced technology, it is easy to dismantle without harming the environment. The long term effects of fossil fuel power stations are not the same.

They can create jobs. If new wind farms are established on land and offshore then a manufacturing, installation and maintenance industry will also be created. This could bring a new source of employment to rural areas as the sites that are often remote or in rural communities that have high unemployment.

If we decide we don’t like them on farming land then they can be built offshore. New technology allows wind farms to be built off the coast and beyond the horizon line meaning that they are not visible from the shore.

The main negative is the fact they are eyesores. The best sites for wind farms are often remote areas and the turbines spoil the natural beauty of the landscape.

Wind power is expensive. Currently wind energy not as efficient as fossil fuel or nuclear energy and farms are expensive to set up.

They also cause noise pollution. People living close to turbines claim that the low level noise is causing stress-related illness.

The site must be considered with great care. Turbines can cause disruption to TV and radio signals and even the migration of birds when they are not positioned correctly.

The arguments often come down to whether the potential benefits overshadow the impact on the landscape. Some people near wind farms believe that most of the benefits are seen by the energy companies (who make a profit from their turbines) and the government (which gets closer to its carbon reduction targets), while the negative affects are all heaped on the local community.

Does wind power kill birds? – And does it kill too many?

2006-08-17T04:20:00.000-07:00

We would all agree that electricity produced from renewable energy resources is an environmentally-preferred alternative to fossil fuel. Many people believe that wind turbines should be part of the solution to green house gases, but is wind a part of another environmental problem?

In the last year, reports by some Federal MP’s have suggested that wind turbines kill birds. This has been the case with the Bald Hills proposed wind farm in South Gippsland. But are the "raptor-matics" and "cuisinarts of the sky" really the bird killers they are claimed to be? Generally, the proponents of the bird stories are the NIMBY’s who don’t what a wind turbines in their local area.

There is strong support either way and I am basically confused and don’t really know what to believe. Here are a couple of articles that try to debunk the bird killer myth.

Here’s an article from THE BIRDCHASER. A blog that has a recent post on the maths of bird deaths. Tilting at wind mills

Here is also an industry source on wind farms. NWCC Bird and Bats - Summary of Research

From today’s Age it appears the Greens have also backed away from supporting the Bald Hill’s wind farm. But is their decision more political than environmental.

THE Victorian Greens have promised to stop the construction of wind farms opposed by local residents, despite their policies of supporting renewable energy.

The first wind farm on the Greens' hit list will be the $220 million Bald Hills wind farm in South Gippsland, which was controversially vetoed earlier this year by the Federal Government over a perceived threat to the endangered orange-bellied parrot.

US Business goes green with new buildings

2006-08-15T14:17:00.000-07:00

The new Bank of America Tower will stand as one of the world's most environmentally responsible high-rise buildings. This is an example of how a company can create jobs and also protect the environment. More building like this will provide the safest and cleanest environment for employees and lower fuel consumption by using solar power.

The high rise incorporates innovative, technologies that will make the building one of the world's newest most environmentally responsible office buildings. In the US there is a U.S. Green Building Council to promote energy efficiency in new construction.

Buildings are something of an energy-efficiency blind spot in Australia. Public attention tends to focus largely on automobile companies and mileage, but houses and skyscrapers consume more energy than cars. I don't know the numbers for Australia, but according to the US Energy Department, residential and commercial buildings account for 40 percent of total energy consumption in the US, versus just 28 percent for the entire transportation sector.

From today's Dow Jones Market Watch: An article on "green buildings," including a preview of the eco-friendly Bank of America building going up in NYC.

Watch Video from Market Watch

High petrol prices are good for us

2006-08-09T13:16:00.001-07:00

From today's Age.

Somebody has to say it. The sooner the price of petrol is lifted to $2 a litre, the greater the chance that Australia will enjoy a relatively smooth, as distinct from a violent, transition to a world in which both mobility and lifestyles will be seriously constrained by a combination of oil scarcity and the need to reduce greenhouse gases to maintain a global climate fit for human and the other life forms that inhabit the planet. - Kenneth Davidson 9/8/06

The way you drive and the condition of your car has an impact on the amount of petrol you use and in turn the amount of green houses gases your car produces. Here are a few tips to help you save the environment by using less petrol.

Plan to do a number of errands in one trip rather than several trips and save both time and fuel. Try to avoid short vehicle trips by walking or cycling, this will save over a quarter of a kilogram of greenhouse gas emissions per kilometre of vehicle driving it replaces. Also avoid peak-hour traffic whenever possible. Catch the bus – that’s what I do.

The engine runs most efficiently between around 1,500 and 2,500 rpm (lower in diesels). To maintain these low revs you should change up through the gears as soon as practical and before the revs reach 2500 rpm.

Automatic transmissions will shift up more quickly and smoothly if you ease back slightly on the accelerator once the car gathers momentum.

Drive at a good distance from the car in front so you can anticipate and travel with the flow of traffic. This avoids unnecessary acceleration and frequent repetitive braking that ends up wasting fuel. It's also far safer.

Minimise fuel wasted in idling by stopping the engine whenever your car is stopped or held up for an extended period of time. By having the engine switched off, even for a short period, you will save more fuel than is lost from the burst of fuel involved in restarting the engine. The net increased wear and tear from this practice is negligible.

High speeds result in high fuel consumption. At 110 km/h your car uses up to 25 per cent more fuel than it would cruising at 90 km/h.

Additional parts on the exterior of a vehicle such as roof racks and spoilers, or having the window open, increases air resistance and fuel consumption, in some cases by over 20%.

Inflate your vehicle's tyres to the highest pressure recommended by the manufacture and make sure your wheels are properly aligned. Looking after your tyres will not only reduce your fuel consumption it will also extend tyre life and improve handling.
Air conditioners can use about 10 per cent extra fuel when operating. However, at speeds of over 80 km/h, use of air conditioning is better for fuel consumption than an open window.

The more a vehicle carries, the more fuel it uses; an extra 50 kg of weight can increase your fuel bill by 2 per cent.

Keep your vehicle well tuned and reduce greenhouse gases by up to 5 per cent.

Tax Breaks on SUVs should be limited

2006-08-03T12:31:00.000-07:00

The Bush government must review it’s tax break rules on SUVs. The US government allows greater tax breaks of up to $75,000 (previously $25,000) for businesses and self-employed people who purchase a SUVs. The proposed tax deduction for purchases of "capital equipment" is part of the president’s economic stimulus plan – however there is a definite loophole regarding a large SUV could be classified as a “truck”.

The tax credits for fuel-efficient cars remains stuck in the US congress, the US government was able give the green light to tax deductions of up to $75,000 for the least fuel-efficient and most polluting vehicles.

The law should be amended that the vehicle must be used for 100% business use before the business is eligible for a tax break on a SUV.

GM's Hybrid SUV

2006-08-01T12:28:00.000-07:00

There is some progress with the US automotive industry in lowering greenhouse gas emission, eventhough small at this stage. Here we have it, a hybrid SUV. Rick Wagoner (CEO - and that's his real name) has officially confirmed that General Motors is working on a hybrid version of Cadillac Escalade SUV that is set for release in late 2007. According to the corporate press release, the heavy-duty two-mode hybrid transmission will be similar to those used in a Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon SUVs. I could find any details on milage.

The US dependency on oil - get rid of the SUV

2006-07-31T12:42:00.000-07:00

Here's a good quote from an article from yesterday's SMH. This is from Jeremy Leggett's, Half Gone, which is a book that came out a couple of years ago. This will bring to attention the problems in the US on excessive use of fuel to power the millions on SUV's driving around the US.

"Every day, 15 million barrels of oil pass in tankers through the narrow Straits of Hormuz, in the troubled waters between Saudi Arabia and Iran. The US Government could wipe out the need for all their 5 million barrels [from the Middle East] by requiring its domestic automobile industry to increase the fuel-efficiency of cars and light trucks by a mere 2.7 miles per gallon. But instead it allows [the manufacture] of ever more oil-profligate vehicles. Many sports utility vehicles (SUVs) average just four miles per gallon. The SUV market share in the US was two per cent in 1975 [the last oil shock]. By 2003 it was 24 per cent. In consequence, the average US vehicle fuel efficiency fell between 1987 and 2001, from 26.2 to 24.4 miles per gallon. This is at the same time as other countries were producing cars capable of up to 60 miles per gallon."

- Jeremy Leggett, Half Gone (2005)

Rewarding Polluters to Pollute

2006-07-31T12:16:00.000-07:00

The European Trading Emissions Scheme (ETS) was designed by a rather unintelligent bunch of European bureaucrats back in 2005 with the intention to discourage green-house gases and furthermore encourage cleaner energy forms. However, it has done the opposite, it has rewarded polluters rather than punishing them. It has been about as useful as pockets in your underpants.

The ETS covers five main industries and with those five industries there were 13,000 factories or businesses that were considered serial polluters – the ones that have no morals when it comes to big smoke stacks with lots and lots of black smoke. These polluters were given pollution trading vouchers, like Myer’s vouchers, except you can sell them to others factories that want to do some more polluting. Business that wanted to do more polluting had to buy some vouchers from the 13,000 polluters. Illogical you might say, as the pollution is only traded from one polluter to another. But it gets worse, the 13,000 polluters can also buy vouchers from a large number of developing countries and then continue to pollute in the same way they polluted before. Based on the Koyoto treaty, the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) was established. Developing countries, when they have approval from the UN, they can sell their pollution vouchers to EU companies.

Here’s how the polluters are rewarded. One of the 13,000 polluters lowers it’s pollution levels and passes the cost on the consumer. Our EU polluter then sell the vouchers to another EU company for $90 a tonne (the ETS is measured in tonnes of pollution). Because our developing country maybe in the process of getting approval or the ETS voucher is more easily available at a cheaper price - our EU polluter will be able to buy the same voucher as low as $45 a tonne. Hence by buying cheap CDM’s , our EU company can go back to polluting, pass on extra cost to the consumer and keep the $45 profit per tonne on the voucher they got for free for being a chronic polluter. Only a lunatic would think of a more stupid scheme!!

Who is Pat Michaels? And who pays for him?

2006-07-28T14:18:00.000-07:00

Who is Pat Michaels? Pat Michaels is Virginia's state climatologist, a University of Virginia professor and senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute.

In his book “Meltdown” he challenges the conventional “doom” saying about global warming. To his benefits he acknowledges that the earth is warming because of anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, but he states that warming will probably be modest and that the Bush government will simply sort it out! He denies stories as melting ice caps and glaciers (even though there is evidence to prove otherwise). Who pays for this. The bloody Coal Industry!!

Here's an article on the Global Warming Blog that gives more details on the antics of the coal industry in funding global warming sceptics.
Global Warming Watch – Why you aren’t doing anything about…

Passing around the hat for Coal Burners

2006-07-27T12:57:00.000-07:00

Desperate US Fossil Fuel burning utilities are passing the hat for one of the few remaining scientists sceptical of the global warming harm caused by industries that burn fossil fuels.

The well known global warming sceptic, Pat Michaels (Virginia's state climatologist, a University of Virginia professor and senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute) told Western business leaders last year that he was running out of money for his analyses of other scientists' global warming research. So last week, a Colorado utility organised a collection campaign to help him out, raising at least $150,000 in donations and pledges.

This sounds very much like how the tobacco companies used to operate in the 50's and 60's. It's a wonder Peter Beattie hasn't put some money in the hat to protect his local coal industry.

Marrickville - PAG Focus Group to be setup

2006-07-26T23:23:00.000-07:00

An initial meeting was held last night to discuss the setting up a focus group to communicate the importance of Global Warming to the citizens of Sydney’s inner west. A small committee was set up with the objectives of:

Determining the scope and objective s of the group
Setting down a plan as to how the group can be established
Setting a date for our first meeting.

The four members of the committee are: P Siktars, P Williamson and G M Orangey (minutes).

What is global warming?

2006-07-26T12:43:00.000-07:00

By burning fossil fuels, mankind has been adding gases to the atmosphere that tend to warm the earth, known as "greenhouse gases." In the coming decades, we are likely to continue to change our atmosphere. Because the greenhouse gases that warm the earth stay in the atmosphere longer than the aerosols that cool the earth, the earth's average temperature will continue to warm.

The continued addition of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will raise the earth's average temperature by several degrees in the next century, which will in turn raise the level of the sea. In the future, most of the world is expected to warm. Scientists are currently unable to determine which parts of the world will become wetter or drier, but there is likely to be an overall trend toward increased precipitation and evaporation, more intense rainstorms, and drier soils.